The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Queſt. 3.
Whether Eraſtus doth juſtly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Teſtament?
VVEe take types of uncleanneſſe in the Old Teſtament, to be rightly expounded, when the holy Ghoſt in the New-Teſtament doth expound them. Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleanneſſe is cleare, 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing, and I will receive you, 18. And I will be a Father unto you, and yee ſhall be my Sonnes and Daughters, ſaith the Lord Almighty. This is a manifeſt Expoſition of the Ceremoniall holineſſe and cleanneſſe, commanded in the booke of Leviticus, for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes, about eſchewing of uncleane things, he ſaith in generall, Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes, and keepe my Commandements, and doe them. 11. I will ſet my Tabernacle amongſt you, and I will be your God, and ye ſhall be my people. And it is a cleare alluſion to Numb. 19. 11. He that toucheth the dead body of any man, ſhall be unclean ſeven dayes. 16. He that toucheth one that is ſlaine with the ſword, in the open field, is uncleane. 22. Whatſoever the uncleane perſon toucheth ſhall be uncleane: So Paul, Tit. 1. 15. To them that are defiled and unbeleeving, nothing is pure, but even their minde and conſcience is defiled.
2. The Prophets expound it ſo, Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I ſprinkle clean water upon you, and yee ſhall be clean. From all your filthineſſe, and all your Idols will I cleanſe you. Hath he not a cleare reference to the water of Separation, Num. 19.? With this water the unclean perſon, and his clothes were waſhed, yea, the Tents and the Veſſels, ver. 17, 21. According to which, ſaith Paul, 2 Cor. 7. 1. Having therefore theſe promiſes (dearly beloved,) let us cleanſe our ſelves, from all filthineſſe of the fleſh and ſpirit: Here a cleare Alluſion to Ceremoniall filthines bodily, and of the fleſh▪ and of Tents and Veſſels, Heb. 10. 22. To both theſe waſhings there is a reference. Let us draw neere, having our hearts ſprinkled from an evill conſcience, and our bodies waſhed with pure water. And Heb. 9. 13. If the blood of buls and goates, and the aſhes of an heifer (mingled with running water, Num. 19. 17. which purged veſſels that were but capable of Ceremoniall uncleanneſſe) ſprinkling the unclean, ſanctifieth to the purifying of the fleſh. 14. How much more ſhall the bloud of Chriſt,—purge your conſcience from dead works? It is cleare alſo, that the unclean were ſeparated and the Leper put out of the campe, ſo as the children of Iſrael might not touch any thing Ceremonially unclean, and all uncleane perſons were put out of the Congregation. Hence the Hypocrites word alluding to that ſeparation, Eſa. 64. 5. Stand by thy ſelfe, come not neere to me; for I am holier then thou. So was Miriam removed, and leprous King Vzziah out of the Congregation of the Lord.
Eraſtus. We deny that the Ceremoniall uncleannes, ſignified theConfirm. Theſ. l. 2. c. 1. p. 130. 131. wickednes of converſation, ſo that it can be proved that both theſe uncleanneſſes were puniſhed with the ſame puniſhment. 1. Becauſe many againſt their will were polluted legally, as the night pollutions, the diſeaſes monethly of women, when they were neceſſitated to be with Children, Parents, Wife, brethren when they died; ſometimes they touched unclean things ignorantly, but no man lives wickedly againſt his will. 2. God could not forbid in every time and place the touching of the dead, onelyonly God commanded the polluted to be purified according to the Law: God vvould have his people neere their dying friends, but God never gave leave to any to live vvickedly. 3. A holy man not ſinning in his thought, remaining holy, might be legally unclean, vvithout either his vvill or knovvledge, by touching ſome uncleane thing, that he knevv not to be unclean. But a vvicked man doth not at one time both doe vvickedly, and remaine pure and holy.
Anſ. All this is a meere cavilling at the wiſedome of God, in making ſuch Ceremoniall lawes, and ſuch puniſhments againſt the tranſgreſſors of them, as the wiſe Law-giver of his free-will thought fit, becauſe theſe Lawes ſeeme ridiculous. But the fooliſhnes of God is wiſer then men. 1. We ſay not, that the puniſhment of legall and morall uncleanneſſe is all one every way, and alwayes; it is enough for our purpoſe that God will have thoſe who are legally uncleane ſeparated from holy things, while they bee purified, and little ſinne and guiltineſſe ſeeme to bee in legall uncleanneſſe, as when bodily Leproſie came on perſons againſt their will, yet when God will have them puniſhed with being removed from the people of God, from the Sanctuary and the holy things, this could not be for it ſelfe; for as Paul ſaith, Doth God take care of Oxen? So we, doth God hate bodily diſeaſes, which are his owne juſt actions, not our ſinfull doings? ſince I ſay God hateth them not, and putteth not puniſhment on them for themſelves; therefore it muſt be to ſignifie what deteſtation and puniſhment the Lord our God, would have his Church to put upon morall wickedneſſe: So we thinke Eraſtus might have ſpared paper and paines, in proving a difference (which no Divine denieth,) between Ceremoniall and Morall uncleanneſſe, and the puniſhment of the one and of the other, for it can never prove his concluſion. Ergo, Separation for legall uncleanneſſe, cannot typifie ſeparation for Morall uncleanneſſe. I could give eight and twenty differences between Iſaac and Chriſt, as Eraſtus giveth ſeventeen or eighteen between Legall and Morall uncleanneſſe, and the puniſhment of both: But I hope that ſhould never conclude againſt the Holy Ghoſt, Heb. 11. 17, 18, 19. Gal. 4. 28, 29, 30. Rom. 9. 9. that Iſaac was not a type of Ieſus Chriſt. 2. Night pollutions are not altogether againſt our will, they are ſinfull pollutions, except concupiſcence, and luſtfull habituall day luſts, the cauſe of them, be not ſinfull pollutions; yea, and forbidden in the ſeventh Commandement.
3. Theſe pollutions Legall cauſed by invincible ignorance, were types or ſymbolicall ſignes of our originall iniquity, and give me leave to doubt, if all actuall touching of things unclean, was no Morall ſinfulneſſe. I conceive the Iewes, as the Chriſtians alſo were obliged to walk foreign, Epheſ. 5. 15. and were to take heed to the outer-man, that they ſhould come neere no uncleane thing, in ſome caſes leproſie and other legall uncleannes came on them without either will or knowledge. 4. If the ſtanding beſide the dying friends be all one with touching the dead, I remit to the principles of Phyſicke, and if the touching of any dead be excepted in the Law Ceremoniall, let the learned judge. All the other differences aſſigned by Eraſtus I leave, as not concludent againſt us, they tend all either to blame God, who ſhould puniſh ſome legall uncleannes, that is, altogether againſt the will of man, with any puniſhment at all, as the three firſt differences inſinuate. Or, 2. that God puniſhed ſome Legall uncleannes more ſeverely then homicide and Morall uncleannes, as the 5. difference doth inſinuate, and the 4. difference. And this is to challenge God, to whom I deſire to aſcribe a Soveraignty, both in puniſhing, or pardoning as he thinketh good: Or in puniſhing more ſeverely, or more mildely theſe ſame ſinnes, or in puniſhing greater ſins with lighter puniſhment, and with a heavier rod lighter ſinnes.
Eraſtus. Any legally unclean was debarred from the Temple,133. the difference was onelyonly in the time, but you debarre not all wicked men from the Supper.
Anſ. The moſt that were legally unclean, were alſo morally unclean, in that they willingly tranſgreſſed a known Law; Ergo, Legall uncleannes, was alſo Morall uncleannes. 2. Though we debar not all wicked men, but onelyonly the ſcandalous, yet we have in readineſſe vengeance againſt all, and ſo againſt latent diſobedience, which is a high cenſure, in debarring hypocrites from heaven; and we conceive Legall uncleannes as the monthly diſeaſes of women, night pollutions, want of Circumciſion did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption, which cannot be puniſhed by men or the Church; but it followes not, becauſe Legall uncleanneſſe ſignifieth ſome other uncleanneſſe then that which is ſcandalous and cenſurable by the Church; Ergo, it ſignifieth not ſinnes ſcandalous and cenſurable by the Church.
Eraſtus. He that was legally unclean a long time, or all his life,134. as a Leper; was not eſteemed as no Iew, or uncircumciſed, or a damned man, he was to keepe the Sabbath; yea, none unclean were excluded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. MonethMonth, Lev. 16. and 23. Yea, every ſoul under the pain of cutting off, was to afflict his ſoule that day: then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men, yea the Magiſtrate could not puniſh a man for Leproſie.
Anſ. This is a poor argument, becauſe Ceremoniall Excommunication differeth from Chriſtian Excommunication; Ergo, the former is not a type of the latter, it followeth not. Iſaacs blood was never really ſhed, Chriſt was really crucified, Iſaac was not mocked, ſpitted on, did not wear a crown of Thornes, Iews and Gentiles crucified him not, between two Theevs. Ergo, Iſaac was no figure of Chriſt offered for our ſins, it followeth not. 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews, but in ſome reſpect, they might no more come to the Temple. 2. Nor amongſt the people of God, nor 3. Eate the Paſſeover, then Heathens might doe; and ſo are the Excommunicated with u…, they are not exempted from faith, repenting, afflicting their ſoule for the ſinnes of the Land, nor are they eternally damned, ſo they repent. But Eraſtus hath no ground to ſay, becauſe the unclean were to afflict their ſoules, and abſtaine from ſervile worke in the day of atonement, (as our Excommunicants are not looſed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly, but from ſome publike Church duties) but I ſee not how it followes; Ergo, The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation, and to obſerve the publike ſolemnities with Gods people; One Law of God is not contradicent to another, and the Leper and unclean were ſeparated, Ergo, God could not tie them to be mingled with his people. 3. The Leper was not puniſhed by the Magiſtrate, for he ſuffered onelyonly for his Leproſie. But it followeth not that the Magiſtrate ſhould not puniſh a perſon obſtinate to the Church.
Eraſtus. When ſome uncleane perſons were debarred from the Tabernacle136. and ſacrifices, many wickedmen were admitted: Ergo. Moſes both commanded men, at the ſame time, to come to the holy things, and not to come.
Anſw. Moſes bade the unclean come, he bade all clean, ſo they were not ſcandalouſly and openly wicked, come; and ſome came that were not bidden, but rebuked for their coming, as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Pſal. 50. 15. Here is no contradiction.
Eraſtus. There be no figures of things preſent, but of things to come; morall uncleanneſſe was preſent, at leaſt there be no figures of things that incurre in the ſenſes, as theft and homicide.
Anſ. Circumciſion, the Lords Supper, are ſignes and Symbols of things preſent, as of Originall ſinne, our preſent union with Chriſt, and communion of love amongſt our ſelves, Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18. 2. Scandals, as they are ſpirituall wickednes, incurre not in our ſenſes, yet other wayes they are viſible. 3. Chriſts dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apoſtle, and Mary, and his death incurred in their ſenſes, they ſaw him die. So was Chriſt raiſed from the dead, typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale, and with their eyes they ſaw him, after he roſe againe.
Eraſtus. Houſes, cloaths, trees, ſtones, were capable of legall uncleannes,137. men onelyonly of Morall; Legall uncleannes is a qualitie, wickednes morall is in actions.
Anſ. I am aſhamed and wearied to put in Paper ſuch childiſh things, all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes; Iſaac was but a man, Moſes a man onelyonly; Ergo, they cannot be Types of Chriſt who is more then a man; Bread and Wine are ſome other thing then Chriſt, then cannot theſe be ſymbols of Chriſt, and our ſpirituall communion with him. I ſee nothing here, but a challenging of Gods wiſedome, who hath choſen leproſie bodily, to figure out ſinnes ſpirituall Leproſie. Eraſtus will ſay not ſo, Leproſie is in the category of quality, and ſinfull actions in the category of actions.
Eraſtus. Legall uncleannes, ſignifieth naturall corruption, not ſcandals.
Anſ. Yea but Leproſie and other uncleannes legall, was contagious and infectious, and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker; ſin originall being common to all▪ is not that contagious from one to many; nor did the Lord ever command Separation for ſinne Originall, but for tranſgreſſion of Ceremoniall Lawes he did.
Eraſtus. The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the juſtification, and waſhing of a ſinner in Chriſts blood, becauſe no unclean thing can enter in the New Ieruſalem, and ſo the Scripture, Rev. 21. Eſa. 4…. Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it ſhadowes out no ſuch thing as Excommunication out of the Church.
Anſ. All the arguments that Eraſtusmade to prove that legallCeremoniall uncleannes typified Excluſion out of the viſible Church for Scandals, not out of the Kingdome of Heaven. ſeparation and uncleannes, proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes, will with the ſame force conclude, that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven, As for inſtance; to begin with the laſt, Legall uncleanneſſe ſignifieth ſinne originall, not wicked actions, therefore it ſignifieth not ſcandals, then by this Legall uncleannes that cauſed legall ſeparation, is ſignified mens excluſion out of the high Jeruſalem, for onelyonly ſinne Originall, not for actuall ſins. This type muſt be a lying type, for actuall ſins eſpecially deba…res us out of the New Jeruſalem, Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature, differ as much as legall uncleannes and actuall wickedneſſe. But Eraſtus ſaid the former cannot typifie the latter. 1. Becauſe Legall uncleannes is often involuntary, 2. It is not univerſally forbidden. 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean, but actuall morall wickedneſſe is not ſo, even ſo ſay I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam. 2. Is univerſally forbidden. 3. It cannot conſiſt with that holines which we muſt have, or we cannot ſee God. 3. By Eraſtus his fourth difference, legall uncleannes was otherwiſe puniſhed then naturall corruption, for naturall corruption is puniſhed with the firſt and ſecond death, Epheſ. 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15, 16. the like may be ſaid of all the reſt. 4. Numb. 12. 14. Shame was unſeparably annexed to Leproſie with contagion, ſo leavening of others, and ſhame is annexed to …oul ſcandals, and annexed to caſting out of the Church, 1 Cor. 5, 6, 7. 2 Theſ. 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9, 10. But though a neceſſity of waſhing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes, ere we enter into Heaven; yet not ſo directly as in legall ſeparation, for in it men ſcandalous are excluded out of the church, leaſt the uncleane ſhould infect the clean, as is cleare as the light, Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6, 7. but wicked men are not excluded out of the New Ieruſalem in heaven, for fear they ſhould infect and defile any perſon in heaven. 2. Separation from the Church is medicinall, Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardoned, 2 Cor. 5, 6, 7. that the Spirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man ſhamed for his further good, 2 Theſ. 3. 14. But excluſion of men out of the New Jeruſalem for their uncleannes, Rev. 21. is not medicinall, that they may be humbled, but for their everlaſting ſhame and deſtruction; and therfore a ſeparation from the Church by way of diſcipline is here intended, not any excluſion out of heaven.
Eraſtus. All Legall uncleannes is puniſhed with excluſion, but noPage 140. man for corruption of nature is excluded out of the Church.
Anſ. We grant all, and therefore legall uncleannes did hold forth actuall ſcandalouſneſſe, not naturall corruption.
Eraſtus. The actions of unclean men were puniſhed by death, Ergo, Not by excluſion out of the Church.
Anſ. The Antecedent is not univerſally true: Capitall faults, as I ſaid before, were onelyonly thus puniſhed; the conſequence is null.
Eraſtus. He that was legally unclean did defile all beſide him,Page 142, 143, 144, 145. even veſſels, places, garments; but Theeves, adulterers doe not defile, but theſe that conſent to their wickednes; nor did they defile the places; The adulterous women brought to the Prieſt and temple, did not defile the Prieſt or Temple, Ioh. 8. Nor did Moſes and others abſtain from the worſhip, the Manna, &c. becauſe many wicked men did partake thereof, nor were the veſſels purified after wicked men touched them; therefore it followeth not, becauſe God is more offended with the ſacrifices of the wicked, then of thoſe that are onelyonly legally uncleane, that therefore wicked men are no leſſe to be debarred from the holy things, then thoſe that are legally unclean.
Anſ. This is to diſpute with God; God made a law, that he who being legally unclean, ſhould touch men or things legally unclean, ſhould pollute; This Law, God freely made as a poſitive ſtatute; who can tye God to make the like Law touching thoſe that are morally uncleane? no man: now becauſe God made no ſuch Law, it leaveth not off to be the ſinne of the Prieſts, that they brought the uncircumciſed in heart to the Sanctuary, as God complaineth, Ezek. 44. 8, 9. c. 22, 26. And that the Church ſhould hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God. 2. The adulterous woman was brought to the Prieſt and Temple to be judged, God had ſo commanded, and therefore no wonder ſhe polluted neither Prieſt nor Temple, but had ſhee not polluted the Paſſeover Morally, though I ſay not Ceremonially, if ſhe had eaten without Repentance and offering for her ſinne? I thinke ſhe would.
Eraſtus. Though God puniſh not pollution of holy things, by debarring men from them, it followeth not that he winketh at them, for he puniſheth them with death, and more grievouſly.
Anſ. But by this that God puniſheth the pollution of non-convertingPage 146. Ordinances with death, we gather that the Church ſhould alſo hinder the pollutions of them, and puniſh Swine that trample on Pearles, and not proſtitute holy things to their luſt. Beza ſaid, thoſe that were unclean, had need of Sacrifices, Ergo, They were guilty of ſinne. Eraſtus ſaith, that externall uncleannes was not ſinne, but becauſe it put us in mind of our naturall corruption, that had need to be purged in Chriſts blood. Anſ. The breach of a Law is ſin, a Ceremoniall Law is a Law. 2. It was puniſhed often with cutting off from the Congregation, but God did not cut off men fromPage 140. At nemo propter ingenitam naturae corruptionem p… nitur. Page 147. Legall uncleanneſſe was ſin. the Congregation for naturall corruption, as Eraſtus granteth.
Eraſtus. If legall uncleannes were ſinne, God would not have commanded it: But God commanded, or at leaſt permitted the Prieſts and others to pollute themſelves with the dead, Levit. 21. Ezek. 44.
Anſ. It is weakly argued, for the father to kill the ſonne, then ſhould be no ſinne; God commanded Abraham to offer up his ſon Iſaac; it is not properly a defiling, nor a ſinne, when God Levit. 21. willeth the Prieſt to be neer thoſe of his kin when they die, it is Gods owne exception from the Law, though to come neere to others when they are dead be ſin. Gods commanding and forbidding will is the formall cauſe and rule of obedience and ſinne.
Eraſtus. Where finde you that the Prieſts were to judge whetherPage 150. any had repented, that ſo he might be admitted to the Temple?
Anſ. It is written, Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Prieſts ſhould not have admitted the uncircumciſed in heart to the Sanctuary; Ergo, they ſhould have tryed if they were ſuch ere they admitted them. Yea, if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer, the ſinner muſt firſt reſtore what he hath unjuſtly taken away, Lev. 6. 4, 5, 6. Ergo, The Prieſt except he rule unjuſtly, ſhould judge whether he have firſt reſtored it in the principall, and added the fift part more into it, Levit. 6. 5. As Ezra the Prieſt ſtood up, and ſaid unto them, yee have tranſgreſſed, and have taken ſtrange wives,—now therefore make confeſſion, and ſeparate your ſelfe from the people of the Land, and from the ſtrange wives, Ezra, c. 10. v. 11, 12. And this they did ere they ſacrificed; Ergo, the Prieſts judged of their repentance, before they were admitted to Sacrifice: and the waſhing of the hands in Innocency before the perſon compaſſed the Altar, Pſal. 26. 6. muſt be tryed by the Prieſt, if not, the Prieſt offered to God the Sacrifice of fooles, and did eate the ſinnes of the people, in offering for contumacious impenitents.
Eraſtus ſaith, the putting away of their wives was a civill buſines, and belonged to the Magiſtrate.
Anſ. Ezra was a Prieſt, and Shechaniah ſaith, ver. 5. Ariſe, this matter belongs to thee, and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Prieſt.